Subscribe via RSSArchitects held to be "Fit For Purpose"
According to this article the IPCC is wanting feedback on its actions and how well it has performed its duties...
You can leave your comments here. We suggest you focus on the several key issues:
- Complete Transparency in a timely manner - minutes, drafts, notes and email exchanges should be made publicly available as soon as they are made available to committee's or reviewer's. No 'locked out' sessions to be permitted.
- Reviewers Comments - similarly any comment must be duly recorded along with its analysis and both be made publicly available in a timely manner.
- Publication deadlines - consideration for reference inclusion only be given to papers currently in publication, papers about to be published or in review are not to be referenced. Also papers so referenced need to fully disclose methods and data sources to allow full repeatability.
- Conclusions, graphs or data that depends upon statistical methods to undergo separate review gate by dedicated statisticians independent of environmental research to ensure accuracy and repeatability.
- IPCC to change mandate to include determining if climate change is also a natural event and committees to be set up to investigate this question.
Follow us on Facebook, click here!
Comments left
- Drhans said:
Bravo, Something like this needs to be said. As Australia's principal stone specialist/stone scientist I frequently encounter problems with stone materials - from the quarry to the final application on a project. Numerous types of problems arise and many are due to the slackness and ignorance of the architect and some engineers. It is now rare for architects to do the necessary research on this type of building product, the adhesives that are used to fix the stone and the type of maintenance that is required after the completion of the job. These days the architect tends to rely on the words of a supplier for these products but fails to realize that the supplier just wants to supply - and take you money. What does a supplier of stone really know about their product - the composition of the product and its likely performance in service in a plethora of potential applications? You might be surprised that very few know much about stone (I can support this with endless examples); it is just another commodity that can be used in construction. What does a supplier know about the application to which that stone is to be used, for example, the strength requirements for certain applications, the durability of that product, and its fitness for certain purposes. He doesn't and yet the architect will rely on that information blindly. He rarely engages an experienced consultant for the advice. He tends to hide behind the fact that stone is a natural product with inherent variations and therefore cannot be held responsible for its behaviour or performance. I have never come across an instance where an architect has been held responsible for stone that he has specified for the project. It goes further. The literature is now swamped by assertions from companies and writers that it is necessary, indeed essential, to seal every stone product irrespective of its composition and application. This is total nonsense and the architect is one of the chief perpetrators of this scam. He relies on the marketing talk of salesmen to make his selection and recommendation about which sealer the builder or tiler must use. He does not engage in any due diligence or research into fitness for purpose of that product. As far he is concerned "stone is stone" with no real difference between the different varieties. Again in my long experience, the architect or the sealer supplier is never held responsible for the poor performance or a failure of the natural material even if they are directly responsible for its failure due to their ignorance and negligence.
ON Thu, 10 Nov 11, 8:45am probably from Australia Reply to this comment
- Andrew Guthrie said:
Does this mean that Architects and Building Services Consultants are exempt from being held accountable for 'Not Fit For Purpose' designs up to when this Bill was introduced? Did the Bill remove the exemption?
ON Fri, 3 Aug 12, 6:02am probably from Australia Reply to this comment
- Older: The Skeptic Global Warming Conference
- Newer: Green Directory
Got a question or comment about this?
Find what you were looking for?.. Not quite what you expected?.. Got a question to ask people?Share your thoughts and use the form below to post a public comment right on this page.